Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Sure it does.
if access==no or access==false then allowed=no else allowed=yes
So basically, you have to decide that all unknown values default to
either one or the other.
If I'm a renderer, and I come across bicycle=difficult, and I only know
about no and yes, which
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
If I'm a renderer, and I come across bicycle=difficult, and I only know
about no and yes, which one do I assume?
Without commenting on the rest of the discussion: Surely you (the
renderer) must draw such an object as if there were no bicycle tag at
all, whatever
Gervase Markham wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
if access==no or access==false then allowed=no else allowed=yes
So basically, you have to decide that all unknown values default
to either one or the other.
If I'm a renderer, and I come across bicycle=difficult, and I only
know about no
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Without commenting on the rest of the discussion: Surely you (the
renderer) must draw such an object as if there were no bicycle tag at
all, whatever that means for you.
But that doesn't work, does it?
Say I'm a general purpose renderer who shows access. I understand
Hi,
Gervase Markham wrote:
Say I'm a general purpose renderer who shows access. I understand
bicycle=no and bicycle=yes, and show them accordingly.
You will also have to understand way without bicycle tag because
that's what 90% of ways have.
Now, instead
of someone coming along with a new
Gervase Markham wrote:
Which should I have done? That's the question I'm saying that anyone who
wants to extend a formerly binary tag with new values needs to provide
an answer to before they start using the new values.
IMO, one should implement the even-more-defensive option C, which is:
if
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
The trouble with that sort of thing, as compared to (ignore the actual
tag names, they are just to give an idea):
bicycle=yes
bicycle:surface=poor
(i.e. splitting out access from quality) is that the former scheme
doesn't have
Gervase Markham wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
The trouble with that sort of thing, as compared to (ignore the actual
tag names, they are just to give an idea):
bicycle=yes
bicycle:surface=poor
(i.e. splitting out access from quality) is that the former
surface=cobblestones/paved/gravel/sand/dirt/grass
width=1m/2m
ele=100m vs ele=150m
?
Looks good to me. Describe what the road is like, rather than making
subjective judgments. Every driver/cyclist/vehicle will be different
and will have to make their own choices. You can't tag for that. Or
Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Per wrote:
Now we can see a big discussion, but no one did anything constructive!
One thing is clear, we need a tag to describe the usability of ways.
If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme!
Smoothness is better than nothing.
2008/12/2 Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Per wrote:
Now we can see a big discussion, but no one did anything constructive!
One thing is clear, we need a tag to describe the usability of ways.
If you don't like smoothness invent a better
Per wrote:
Now we can see a big discussion, but no one did anything constructive!
One thing is clear, we need a tag to describe the usability of ways.
If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme!
Smoothness is better than nothing.
surface=cobblestones/paved/gravel/sand/dirt/grass
pothole_ratio=0.2 #20% of the surface are potholes
max_pothole_size=50cm
If it is a frequently traveled road by motorised vehicle, that size
will not be very static.
That depends on the country!!
Bernhard
begin:vcard
fn:Bernhard Zwischenbrugger
n:Zwischenbrugger;Bernhard
Stephen wrote:
It's a warning, not a restriction.
There are signs I've noted near here that are warnings:
Unsuitable for motor vehicles
This isn't an access permission, and isn't something I'd say was
suitable for the proposed smoothness tag (as it is fine for cyclists
and pedestrians, and
Ed Loach wrote:
Looks good to me. Describe what the road is like, rather than making
subjective judgments. Every driver/cyclist/vehicle will be different
and will have to make their own choices. You can't tag for that. Or
perhaps usability:kia_cee'd:edloach=good /
On Tuesday 02 December 2008 19:38, Alex Mauer wrote:
Ed Loach wrote:
Looks good to me. Describe what the road is like, rather than making
subjective judgments. Every driver/cyclist/vehicle will be different
and will have to make their own choices. You can't tag for that. Or
perhaps
Now we can see a big discussion, but no one did anything constructive!
One thing is clear, we need a tag to describe the usability of ways.
If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme!
Smoothness is better than nothing.
Please have a look at and comment on:
Per-15 wrote:
If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme!
Smoothness is better than nothing.
That's debatable (as well as, er, very_horrible).
Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend
the access tags:
bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
so you'd
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Per-15 wrote:
If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme!
Smoothness is better than nothing.
That's debatable (as well as, er, very_horrible).
Agreed
It does not provide a platform to build on at all.
Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible
Hi
bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
so you'd get
highway=bridleway
foot=yes (permitted, no problem)
bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical)
bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging)
bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem)
In Vienna we have an event called
2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Per-15 wrote:
If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme!
Smoothness is better than nothing.
That's debatable (as well as, er, very_horrible).
Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend
the access
Bernhard Zwischenbrugger wrote:
In Vienna we have an event called Friday Night Skating.
Every week about 1000 Inline Skater meet at 10pm and skate on normal
roads.
The police blocks all the roads an it is possible to skate on roads that
are for normal for cars only.
You can't design/evolve
On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:02, Bernhard Zwischenbrugger wrote:
In Vienna we have an event called Friday Night Skating.
Every week about 1000 Inline Skater meet at 10pm and skate on normal
roads.
The police blocks all the roads an it is possible to skate on roads
that are for normal for cars
2008/12/1 Bernhard Zwischenbrugger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
so you'd get
highway=bridleway
foot=yes (permitted, no problem)
bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical)
bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging)
bicycle:mtb=yes
2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to
extend
the access tags:
bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
so you'd get
highway=bridleway
foot=yes (permitted, no problem)
bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not
On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:15, Douglas Furlong wrote:
If this is an argument in favour of smoothness, then you would run
in to exactly the same problem (just not as fine grained).
If a user see's a road as being tagged as smooth, then they'd
think that they could roller blade on it, which
Robert Vollmert wrote:
The obvious problem with this is the massive redundancy. You need to tag
for every possible form of transport, or infer suitability for something
exotic from the provided suitabilities.
Yes, infer, like we do with every other tag. People realised they didn't
need to tag
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Robert Vollmert wrote:
I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to
discredit smoothness=*.
It's not about corner cases. It's about usability. Remembering what
very_horrible means, or absolutely_smashing, or
2008/12/1 Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Douglas Furlong wrote:
2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
so you'd get
highway=bridleway
foot=yes (permitted, no problem)
2008/12/1 Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Robert Vollmert wrote:
I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to
discredit smoothness=*.
It's not about corner cases. It's about usability. Remembering what
very_horrible means, or
2008/12/1 Robert Vollmert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to
extend
the access tags:
bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
so you'd get
highway=bridleway
foot=yes (permitted, no problem)
Douglas Furlong wrote:
This makes is pretty straightforward to tag for all vehicle types
easily
- a tertiary road that has a fair few potholes could be
smoothness=bumpy (given that car is the primary vehicle for the
tertiary
highway type)
smoothness:mtb=bumpy
Douglas Furlong wrote:
2008/12/1 Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Robert Vollmert wrote:
I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to
discredit smoothness=*.
It's not about corner
2008/12/1 Robert Vollmert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend
the access tags:
bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
so you'd get
highway=bridleway
foot=yes (permitted, no problem)
Douglas Furlong wrote:
2008/12/1 Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Douglas Furlong wrote:
This makes is pretty straightforward to tag for all vehicle
types
easily
- a tertiary road that has a fair few potholes could be
hi
smoothness
I found a wiki page - but it's in German:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zustandserfassung_und_-bewertung
They have a scale from 1 to 5 for zustandswert:
1.5 : maximum for new roads
3.5 : warning level
4.5 : /Schwellenwert - the road must be repaired
/For measuring there is
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Most of all since we're growing exponentially and even if we had 90% of
mappers agree on something today, in two or three months those 90% would
perhaps only form 30% of the community...
This is actually an argument _for_ Map_Features and some
Douglas Furlong wrote:
My biggest issues is that smoothness varies depending on the vehicle in
question, and as such it's just to vague to really be of use.
No it doesn't. It's not like a paving machine runs just ahead of every
off-road vehicle, making the road smoother for them. The
Where you have the sign post for 4WD only, is that an access restriction or
a suggestion?
I.E. If you go on that road with a motorbike, or a 2wd vehicle, could you
face prosecution? Or would you just be considered a bit foolish?
It's a warning, not a restriction. I regularly take my 2WD
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Most of all since we're growing exponentially and even if we had 90% of
mappers agree on something today, in two or three months those 90% would
perhaps only form 30% of the community...
This is actually an argument _for_ Map_Features and some sort of
meritocracy, not
2008/11/26 Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pieren wrote:
I would also show the fact that it was approved by
keeping the entry in the Approved Features with a note that strong
oppositions and open issues have to be fixed before it goes to the
Map Features.
I agree that would be appropriate if
However, if there is a strong opposition (but not only from one
person), then I would also suggest to re-open the proposal and try to
reply to the valid remarks/questions.
I agree with, that. However, I won't say that their are strong oppositions,
for what I have read (appart from Andy
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 10:09, Ed Loach wrote:
PS: so, don't you think wiki would be good to talk about all
that ? (or a
forum ?)
It's a time thing partly.
I understand your point, wikimedia has a damed bad missing feature :
- sending a mail on modify of page (with modification)
PS: so, don't you think wiki would be good to talk about all
that ? (or a
forum ?)
It's a time thing partly. By the time I've read the couple of
hundred or so emails that arrive each day, done a day's work and
spent at least some time with my family, time to start then reading
web-based forums
Andy, this is a very good summary of the choices we face.
As long as important pages on our wiki contain statements like However,
there is no guarantee that a tag listed here will be rendered ..., the
public will regard us as amateur map makers. Contrast this with our
professional quality
Alternatively we can choose people who have done a lot of tagging. For
example Milenko, beej71, wildMan, kiya, Skywave, devrise, blars, GercoKees,
uboot, MichaelCollinson, andrewpmk, ewedistrict, beldin, Alban, katpatuka,
ulfl, mackerski dkt or Sven Anders.
I had a similar idea, democratie
sylvain letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alternatively we can choose people who have done a lot of tagging. For
example Milenko, beej71, wildMan, kiya, Skywave, devrise, blars, GercoKees,
uboot, MichaelCollinson, andrewpmk, ewedistrict, beldin, Alban, katpatuka,
ulfl, mackerski dkt or Sven
Pieren wrote:
I would also show the fact that it was approved by
keeping the entry in the Approved Features with a note that strong
oppositions and open issues have to be fixed before it goes to the
Map Features.
I agree that would be appropriate if there were any strong oppositions
besides
The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the
past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness
We should stop the game now. All the people who like the Map
Features page should say something about this edit war
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Pieren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the
past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness
We should stop the game now. All the people
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 04:49:36PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the
past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness
We should stop the game now. All the people who like
Andy Allan schrieb:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Pieren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the
past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness
We should stop the game
On Nov 25, 2008, at 17:16, Andy Allan wrote:
Go ChrisCF is all I can say - I'd rather that the wiki was a
meritocracy
With those in charge that show most determination in an edit war?
than ochlocracy and I'm flabbergasted that such
ill-conceived tagging is now an acceptable norm.
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 17:52, Robert Vollmert wrote:
On Nov 25, 2008, at 17:16, Andy Allan wrote:
Go ChrisCF is all I can say - I'd rather that the wiki was a
meritocracy
With those in charge that show most determination in an edit war?
Let's drop oil on the fire ! ( even if it's not
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Sebastian Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it has been voted on and should thus stay on
Map Features.
Therein lies the problem, in my opinion, specifically with the thus.
Things could be voted on, but not put onto the Map Features page,
perhaps - otherwise
I'm in absolute un-diplomatic mood, but there are, in this mail NO personnal
attack of any kind.
And as I am writing it, it turns out it is not more a matter of smoothness,
but still :
All the people who like the Map
Features page should say something about this edit war even if they
2008/11/25 Robert Vollmert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with distinguishing between a
normal paved road and one that's suitable for inline skating with
smoothness=good vs. smoothness=excellent. Or between roughly
cobblestoned road and the one most people wouldn't
The Map Features page is really a very important page and not only
for newcomers.
It is supposed to show the commonly agreed way of tagging core features.
But now we have this edit war about smoothness which enters in
conflict with tracktype and surface. The way how those tags can
co-exists is
Who knows what you can or can't inline skate on? Who knows what makes
a sports car a sports car? What's the difference between a trekking
bike and a city bike? What's the worst terrain a tractor can handle?
I've never even seen a rickshaw and how many people have ridden in a
wheelchair?
You
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Sebastian Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Even if the tag is horrible, it has been voted on and should thus stay
on Map Features. Or should just everyone edit the wiki without regard
for others.
The tag is, in my opinion, very_horrible, but that is besides
Hi,
We should stop the game now. All the people who like the Map
Features page should say something about this edit war even if they
don't care about smoothness. I really feel disappointed.
Agreed. It needs to stop, people need to discuss the issue here instead.
Is the feature used? Then,
The place for an approved tag which is not widely used is Approved
features, not Map Features.
That could be a solution. And I think that's where we need to go anyway as the
map feature page is just too big.
What you seams to propose here is keep the good tags well in view and
the bad tags
Gustav Foseid wrote:
We need to have a place to document the most used tags and tags that
should be known, and easy to find, for newcomers as well as trained
mappers. That is the Map Features page, and it should be reserved for a
core set of tags, recognised by the most important renders
sylvain letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The place for an approved tag which is not widely used is Approved
features, not Map Features.
That could be a solution. And I think that's where we need to go anyway as
the
map feature page is just too big.
What you seams to propose here is
Ralf Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The voting process and its imperfectness has been discussed a lot. And this
is a
different topic really. But I still see the voting process being useful. It
is
a very good way of quickly getting opinions that could leave to one of two
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Ralf Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As for the tags that are being rendered by Mapnik or [EMAIL PROTECTED], if
somebody makes a list of those I would put them on the wiki somewhere close
to the renderer. This is because of two reasons:
a) If a tag is not
I'll admit I visited the proposal page when the call for votes was
first announced here in September. The discussion still seemed
unfinished, and I couldn't see me ever using the feature, so then
forgot about it. The discussion still seems unfinished but the
voting seems to have closed with the
Hi,
Matthias Julius wrote:
The biggest criticism of the voting has been that only very few people
participate in it and how are those 15 people to tell thousands of
mappers how to tag.
Most of all since we're growing exponentially and even if we had 90% of
mappers agree on something today,
First of all - I think those edit wars are silly. Please think before you get
involved in these things. Put your energy into some useful stuff instead of
just
fighting an opinion you might not understand right now.
Who knows what you can or can't inline skate on?
Inline-Skaters do!
Who
Hi,
Pieren wrote:
The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the
past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness
I have tried to understand what this is about but failed. Obviously some
guy named ChrisCF
First comment on the ChrisFC problem
-
to be that there's a lack of values
Is that what you understood he meant ?
I am a bit lost in trying to understand what he does propose to make things
better or to give new values...
I thought it was
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for every tag going to Map Features, maybe it really is time we split -
put everything that is widely used on Map Features, and make another page
with Other Features where we have all those that have been proposed and
Hi,
Slight tangent on the edit war (which has morphed into a discussion of
what to do with the ever-growing list of map features on the wiki)...
We don't want to tag to the renderer, but knowing what clients utilize
what tags is important. In my experience with user-collected data in
X-Plane
Ok, I used to skate for the past, and what can i say is, the
smoothness tag is here very useful... actually all curb are not usable
with roller or skate, even if they are with bikes...so this is a tag
for someone who wants to map a curb...
Thus, the tag makes sense...
I think we can manage here
74 matches
Mail list logo
